Long Island Shooters Forum banner
1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
588 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
You walk into a police precinct or office in police headquarters and every cop working at a desk in that office has a gun hanging from their hip. They could be doing no more than simple clerical tasks, but they are armed. It's not questioned, disputed, or criticized in any way. The rational is that they were once trained to "protect us" so they need to be armed, and everyone else needs to be unarmed so they remain the authority in protection.

Conversely, the other "protectors", our United States military personnel, are intentionally unarmed and left vulnerable. Men and women that are trained 100 times better then the police in self defense and the use of force are disarmed by federal laws, states laws, and law enforcement policies. Military personnel are mandated to remain physically fit, are tested twice a year in physical endurance and strength to prove that they can legitimate continue to protect us, and will be separated if they do not remain fit for duty. While law enforcement personnel are never questioned with regard to their ability to protect and be armed, military personnel are intentionally disarmed. Because they are controlled by executive order of the "Command in Chief", military bases are deemed "gun free zones" to further the current administration's gun control agenda. Civilian law enforcement authorities do not recognize the military as protectors and seek to disarm them in the same manner.

Over the past few years we have seen numerous deadly attacks on the military. Every time the attacker is identified as an extremist or terrorist, it is politically spun into just another act of violence and another need for gun control. In all of these cases, the military was left intentionally unarmed, whereas a "gun free zone" guarantees that a bad guy will never have to worry about return fire from a good guy. Soldiers and Sailors that have been well trained and sworn to protect us cannot even protect themselves; all due to an overbearing and overreaching gun control agenda?

Gun control has nothing to do with guns, and all to do with keeping good people vulnerable and controllable. Whether or not you choose to own a gun, laws involving gun control impact everyone in a detrimental manner. Supporting the gun control agenda enables violence, emboldens the bad guys, and puts out military personnel in harms way.

We owe it to our military and ourselves to do better than this.
 

·
Borders, Language, Culture
Joined
·
4,738 Posts
It seems that even the LIF faithful are being desensitized by these stories. Another Islamic attack on America, another ho-hum reaction by the MSM.

Once again I question someone's willingness to join the military at this point. I know the motivation is good. But, isn't it clear that the political class doesn't give a damn about our military & how it's used? If people stopped volunteering, then we'd either have to reinstate the draft or elect political leaders that would look at our brave men & women as more than a peacekeeping force that's not even allowed to be armed at home.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mad Russian

·
MOLON LABE
Joined
·
3,308 Posts
I get your point, but most military are not trained 100 times better than police, especially in use of force. And the military has always been very restrictive of soldiers having "loaded" firearms in CONUS. Even personal firearm ownership is regulated in the military for those living on base. The military brass has never allowed it's officers or soldiers to be armed ( except MPs) if not directly involved in a live fire exercise on a firing ranges. They are more worried about accidents and misplaced weapons.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,422 Posts
I guess like so many other threads one here it becomes a knock against LE. Usually the same players who ***** about others instead of fighting for what they believe or want.

Military personnel should be armed especially while at work and or in uniform. Don't know why complaining about LE is necessary but certain people have a bias.
 

·
Walker1847
Joined
·
12,075 Posts
You walk into a police precinct or office in police headquarters and every cop working at a desk in that office has a gun hanging from their hip. They could be doing no more than simple clerical tasks, but they are armed. It's not questioned, disputed, or criticized in any way. The rational is that they were once trained to "protect us" so they need to be armed, and everyone else needs to be unarmed so they remain the authority in protection.

Conversely, the other "protectors", our United States military personnel, are intentionally unarmed and left vulnerable. Men and women that are trained 100 times better then the police in self defense and the use of force are disarmed by federal laws, states laws, and law enforcement policies. Military personnel are mandated to remain physically fit, are tested twice a year in physical endurance and strength to prove that they can legitimate continue to protect us, and will be separated if they do not remain fit for duty. While law enforcement personnel are never questioned with regard to their ability to protect and be armed, military personnel are intentionally disarmed. Because they are controlled by executive order of the "Command in Chief", military bases are deemed "gun free zones" to further the current administration's gun control agenda. Civilian law enforcement authorities do not recognize the military as protectors and seek to disarm them in the same manner.

Over the past few years we have seen numerous deadly attacks on the military. Every time the attacker is identified as an extremist or terrorist, it is politically spun into just another act of violence and another need for gun control. In all of these cases, the military was left intentionally unarmed, whereas a "gun free zone" guarantees that a bad guy will never have to worry about return fire from a good guy. Soldiers and Sailors that have been well trained and sworn to protect us cannot even protect themselves; all due to an overbearing and overreaching gun control agenda?

Gun control has nothing to do with guns, and all to do with keeping good people vulnerable and controllable. Whether or not you choose to own a gun, laws involving gun control impact everyone in a detrimental manner. Supporting the gun control agenda enables violence, emboldens the bad guys, and puts out military personnel in harms way.

We owe it to our military and ourselves to do better than this.
A link to this, plus the Breitbart story that goes with it:
https://www.facebook.com/NYSCCW?fref=nf&pnref=story
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/16/expert-chattanooga-proves-that-military-must-rethink-gun-free-zones/
 
  • Like
Reactions: brirodg

·
MOLON LABE
Joined
·
3,308 Posts
The military self castrated itself with regards to having weapons off the range. There has been no recent "executive order" or gun control agenda pressure that has drastically changed anything. The military tends to treat its soldiers like children, that's the way it's always been.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,831 Posts
The problem is perimeter and gate security. This used to be a job done by troops garrisoned at the base (as was just about every other job). Outside contractors should not be used where there is a wealth of manpower. The rules should be simple enough. Stop if challenged. Get shot if you don't stop. If you enter (or try to enter) anywhere other than an active gate, you get shot, or at least cuffed immediately and held. This is not a local jurisdiction matter.

The other problem is who is allowed to become part of the military. I refer back to the Ft. Hood attack.
 

·
Borders, Language, Culture
Joined
·
4,738 Posts
Still, we are not getting to the root of the problem. After these shootings, these jihadists should be fully vetted & the connections to terrorists groups established. Then, it should be publicized that they had connections to Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS or whatever. Once this established, retaliation should commence.

Why do we have to live in fear? We took out Germany & Japan in 4 years. Were we afraid that some Nazis were going to on a terrorist campaign in the West? No - because they were broken. We need to break this nutty ideology. The longer we wait, the worse the problem.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,460 Posts
Our military, whether Active Duty, Reserve, National Guard or Honorably discharged veterans, certainly combat veterans, should absolutely have the ability to be armed. Different services train to different standards but every member IS trained. There are differences between military weapons training, ROE's and mission when deployed versus in CONUS. But these are easily addressable.
We recently had an AD soldier from LI arrested for having an unloaded handgun in his checked baggage. This soldier had traveled home unexpectedly for his sisters funeral and assumed (wrongly) that he was permitted to have his handgun with him. PAPD & NYPD were aggressive in their handling of him and he got to see the inside of one of NY's jails. He will be returning to NY to answer for this error before a judge, the outcome will certainly impact his ability to remain in uniform.
Those who have raised our hand a sworn an oath should be not only permitted to be armed but should be encouraged to be. The 2A question here is large, I personally believe that if an American citizen is not a prohibited person they should be able to freely carry. We understand personal responsibility and individual accountability as we'll as possess the training and the experience to support such a position.
For AD Marines and Sailors to be gunned down in a military facility whole they seek to hide and not respond to the threat is criminal.
Where does this madness end?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
588 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
I guess like so many other threads one here it becomes a knock against LE. Usually the same players who ***** about others instead of fighting for what they believe or want.

Military personnel should be armed especially while at work and or in uniform. Don't know why complaining about LE is necessary but certain people have a bias.
Bashing LE administration and political agendas, not LEOs. Also, bashing the laws that create the "them and us" mentality. This is where the problem emanates from.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,831 Posts
Bashing LE administration and political agendas, not LEOs. Also, bashing the laws that create the "them and us" mentality. This is where the problem emanates from.
Agree! Criticizing the commissioner or other politicians should not be construed as criticism of the rank and file policeman. No different that dumping on oblamer (the Commander in Chief)… we still have huge respect for the troops.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
588 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
The military self castrated itself with regards to having weapons off the range. There has been no recent "executive order" or gun control agenda pressure that has drastically changed anything. The military tends to treat its soldiers like children, that's the way it's always been.
The military is controlled by Congress and POTUS as the CiC. The military is not empowered to do anything significant on their own authority.

High ranking officers are compelled to anticipate the desires of the CiC and Congress and be very proactive. In other words, if you value your job, enact rules that are commensurate with the agenda of your boss without actually having to be told to do so. If you need to be told, you are too late. If the administration is pro gun control, the base commanders can and will turn their base into a microcosm of the utopian world desired by the administration.

I personally saw the Naval Academy's Commandant of Midshipman destroy his chance at becoming an Admiral by expressing his satisfaction of the killing of Osama bin laden to the men and women under his command (and allowed them to celebrate the night their "brother" SEALs did the deed). His statements and actions were deemed politically incorrect. He was subsequently forced into early retirement from the Navy shortly thereafter.

From what I understand, the de-arming of the military bases was ramped up during the Clinton administration,and like most changes of this nature, were not "fixed" during more reasonable administrations. Gun control tends to be "ratcheted", with very little rollback.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,063 Posts
It's not gun control. Its government control. Posse Comitatus Act. That's why military bases are "gun free zones." Be careful what you wish for!

https://en.m.wikiped...e_Comitatus_Act
Nope.

You even read what you posted?

10 U.S.C. § 375. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel

The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.


That's the general gist right there.There are exceptions. But if a recruiter is armed for security/defensive purposes there's no PC Act violation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
588 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
It's not gun control. Its government control. Posse Comitatus Act. That's why military bases are "gun free zones." Be careful what you wish for!

https://en.m.wikiped...e_Comitatus_Act
We certainly don't want the military enforcing the law, but they should be trained and armed to protect themselves. Once you put a uniform on them, and / or privy them to top secret information that a subversive wants, you make them a target just like a LEO in uniform.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top